The success of research usually depends on several factors, including the quality of sources, the abilities of researchers, and the established timeframes. However, any researcher should also know that one of the most crucial decisions to be made at the beginning of a working process is data collection (Flower, 2014). In this study, a decision to develop a mixed methods research to investigate ESL teachers’ perceptions regarding the existing teaching technologies is made. The discussion of research questions, design, strategy, rationale, strengths, and weaknesses may prove the correctness of the researcher’s choice.
Research Questions
Considering that this data collection plan is based on mixed methods, two main research questions should be developed in the study. On the one hand, there must be a qualitative question representing a dominant qualitative paradigm. On the other hand, a quantitative part of the work should contain at least one vital quantitative question. Both questions introduced a strong basis for a future mixed methods research project:
- What are the ESL teachers’ perceptions that have toward integrating technology in their teaching? (a qualitative question for the first stage of research)
- What is the relationship between ESL teachers’ perceptions and their experience with using technology in their teaching? (a quantitative question for the second stage of research).
Research Design
The next step in the development of a data collection plan is a discussion of research design. Creswell and Clark (2018) suggest considering philosophical and theoretical foundations as soon as the research problem is identified. The recognition of design principles, including type, timing, weight, mixing, and domination, is required. In this study, an embedded mixed methods design is used. It is an integrated design that has to be developed specifically to meet the context requirements of the quantitative and qualitative research frameworks by embedding one of the techniques as dominant and another design as complementary (Creswell & Clark, 2018). The peculiar feature of this method is the possibility to link multiple points in data collection and analysis (Fetters, Curry, & Creswell, 2013). In this case, the researcher intends to add important information about the participants through the results of a quantitative survey that has to be embedded within the results of a quantitative (dominant) interview.
Primary data from interviews will be gathered and analyzed. Secondary data is obtained from surveys that occur during the implementation of the primary data collection, meaning that the researcher chooses the embedded design with concurrent timing and a qualitative dominant (weight). Both types of information aim to improve recruitment procedures, gain broad perspectives on a topic, cover the weaknesses of the chosen methods, and explain participants’ reactions and perceptions (Creswell & Clark, 2018). The only aspect that should be mentioned is that the priority of the qualitative method cannot be ignored because it creates a basis for a study. Statistical data is used to prove the appropriateness of a qualitative approach.
Data Collection Strategy
In the study under discussion, a clear embedded mixing data collection strategy is used. Quantitative and qualitative methods allow a researcher to divide the research and investigate different aspects of the same topic. First, a qualitative interview will be developed as a dominant method to gather information about ESL teachers’ perceptions concerning technology integration in teaching. A quantitative survey will then be offered to clarify the relationships between teachers’ perceptions and their technology-based teaching experiences.
Interview
The dominant method aims to clarify what perceptions concerning integrating technology in the classroom ESL teachers have. It consists of five open-ended questions. The researcher can identify what teachers think about the offered intervention and create a clear statement of how they can use technologies. In a QUAL-Quan sampling procedure, the participants belong to the same local community (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). At this stage, all essential details about technology integration in teaching and teachers’ perceptions are gathered. An interview protocol is required to list the questions and explain how the information may be recorded so that the participants give their approval (Creswell & Clark, 2018). Such an organization significantly facilitates the work of a researcher.
Survey
Though it is a supplementary data collection method, its organization plays an important role. There will be ten questions with the help of which two domains can be discussed. Background/demographic information about the participants includes the years of overall teaching experience, the duration of the work at the current school, the time of using technologies in the classroom, and the level of expertise in using technology. A teachers’ perception scale is based on five answers starting from 1 – “Strongly Disagree” and ending with 5 – “Strongly Agree.” Surveys usually help measure the level of the relationships between different aspects (in this case, teachers’ attitudes and experience) and identify the size of the sample that is enough for the study.
Rationale
There are several reasons for why the researcher chooses the embedded concurrent design. First, it is connected with the study’s goal and the necessity to implement both methods to make sure that enough information about the participants is gathered to comprehend the essence of the answers and perceptions. The second cause is explained by the researchers’ lack of access to different sources of information, and several forms of communication with the participants may facilitate a working process. Regarding the fact that there are no adequate sources to define the priority of resources (Creswell & Clark, 2018), embedded research sounds rational. Finally, a statistical report about teachers’ perceptions is appropriate to improve an understanding of descriptive information given by the participants.
Strengths and Limitations
The most substantial aspects of the chosen research design include saving time and developing extensive mixed data collection. Also, not many resources can be required to begin this kind of work. The scale of the design is hard to predict, and researchers are free to move the boundaries regarding their professional needs. Finally, this design is based on a variety of questions, and it is possible to cover different aspects of the same issue in many ways.
However, it is also necessary to be prepared for the specific challenges of this design. For example, a researcher has to work with different types of information and analyze them in the required way. Therefore, in-depth knowledge of mixed methods research is required. Another significant limitation is an obligation to make several important decisions about dominance and sample before gathering information. The integration of qualitative and quantitative data may also challenge researchers.
Conclusion
In general, the creation of a data collection plan is an appropriate combination of steps. It helps to get an idea of where to find information, whom to invite in the study, and how to organize data search. In mixed methods research, it is wrong to believe that a supportive role of quantitative data is not as important as the dominant role of qualitative data. This plan and discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen design prove the significance of the embedded concurrent research strategy in analyzing ESL teachers’ perceptions of technology.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(2), 2134-2156.
Flower, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.